Objectivity Isn't Real, So Why Bother Trying?
Objectivity is unattainable. It’s impossible to do literally anything and not allow one’s own perspective
and ideas to influence the way information is presented. Despite this, history textbooks often make a
claim to objectivity, the idea being that the reader gets a picture of the events that more or less mirrors
the reality of what actually happens. Modernist historical fiction often took this approach as well, aiming
to represent the events within the text as accurately as possible.
and ideas to influence the way information is presented. Despite this, history textbooks often make a
claim to objectivity, the idea being that the reader gets a picture of the events that more or less mirrors
the reality of what actually happens. Modernist historical fiction often took this approach as well, aiming
to represent the events within the text as accurately as possible.
However, Doctorow’s approach to writing what to a different author would be straight historical fiction
differs radically from this method. Doctorow seems to have rejected this as even a remote possibility,
and has instead chosen to privilege individual narratives rather than one overarching story. “Ragtime”
is filled with bias, but it is not Doctorow’s. Instead, the bias comes from the characters he’s portraying.
differs radically from this method. Doctorow seems to have rejected this as even a remote possibility,
and has instead chosen to privilege individual narratives rather than one overarching story. “Ragtime”
is filled with bias, but it is not Doctorow’s. Instead, the bias comes from the characters he’s portraying.
Consider the sequence of chapters detailing the lives of J.P Morgan and Henry Ford. Ford’s chapter is
a scant few pages, filled with dense paragraphs describing his work achievements and devoting only
the briefest of statements to his personal life. In comparison, Morgan’s chapter is much longer, with
far more elegant language and a stronger focus on his internal life and journey to finding answers.
While one might attribute this difference to a bias of Doctorow’s -- perhaps Doctorow simply prefers
J.P Morgan, and therefore chose to write a more extensive chapter about him -- I believe that this
difference reflects a difference in the character of Ford and Morgan. This difference is most clearly
illustrated in their conversation at the end of chapter 20; Morgan takes multiple paragraphs to lay
out his problem, journey, and solution, while Ford takes just a few sentences to sketch out his own
ideas. The two men clearly have different ways of representing themselves and their ideas, and this
is reflected in the chapters dedicated to them.
a scant few pages, filled with dense paragraphs describing his work achievements and devoting only
the briefest of statements to his personal life. In comparison, Morgan’s chapter is much longer, with
far more elegant language and a stronger focus on his internal life and journey to finding answers.
While one might attribute this difference to a bias of Doctorow’s -- perhaps Doctorow simply prefers
J.P Morgan, and therefore chose to write a more extensive chapter about him -- I believe that this
difference reflects a difference in the character of Ford and Morgan. This difference is most clearly
illustrated in their conversation at the end of chapter 20; Morgan takes multiple paragraphs to lay
out his problem, journey, and solution, while Ford takes just a few sentences to sketch out his own
ideas. The two men clearly have different ways of representing themselves and their ideas, and this
is reflected in the chapters dedicated to them.
Because Doctorow has abandoned the idea of an single, overarching narrative, he is not confined in
the same way that an author of historical fiction typically would be. Doctorow acknowledges that there
is no one, true history, and therefore feels entitled to play around with the facts. By being so exceeding
ly and carefully historically accurate for so much of the novel -- J.P Morgan’s red nose and Houdini’s
obsession with death are both well-recorded -- it makes the less-true aspects of “Ragtime” feel like fact
in ways that a purely fictional book would not. At times, Doctorow seems to wave his abilities in the
reader’s face, most notably with the character of the boy. Mysterious, unusual, and unrecorded
incidents surround him, from Houdini pulling up just as the boy wishes it to him catching the ball at a
baseball game. By establishing the narrative as historically accurate to the minutest of minute details
and then throwing in these small, yet highly implausible events, Doctorow blurs the lines between
history and fiction in a thoroughly postmodern fashion.
the same way that an author of historical fiction typically would be. Doctorow acknowledges that there
is no one, true history, and therefore feels entitled to play around with the facts. By being so exceeding
ly and carefully historically accurate for so much of the novel -- J.P Morgan’s red nose and Houdini’s
obsession with death are both well-recorded -- it makes the less-true aspects of “Ragtime” feel like fact
in ways that a purely fictional book would not. At times, Doctorow seems to wave his abilities in the
reader’s face, most notably with the character of the boy. Mysterious, unusual, and unrecorded
incidents surround him, from Houdini pulling up just as the boy wishes it to him catching the ball at a
baseball game. By establishing the narrative as historically accurate to the minutest of minute details
and then throwing in these small, yet highly implausible events, Doctorow blurs the lines between
history and fiction in a thoroughly postmodern fashion.
But Doctorow refuses to acquiesce to rules of any sort, including the ones set up by his own novel.
Coalhouse’s character and arc is a direct contradiction of the regulations set up by the preceding
twenty chapters; he is an extreme character with a massive impact on society, but is entirely fictional.
Coalhouse seems to take the narrative from mostly historical to mostly fictional almost seamlessly,
although Doctorow continues to weave historical fact in between fictitious events, such as the
presence of Charles Victor Faust at New York Giants games in this period.
Coalhouse’s character and arc is a direct contradiction of the regulations set up by the preceding
twenty chapters; he is an extreme character with a massive impact on society, but is entirely fictional.
Coalhouse seems to take the narrative from mostly historical to mostly fictional almost seamlessly,
although Doctorow continues to weave historical fact in between fictitious events, such as the
presence of Charles Victor Faust at New York Giants games in this period.
By this point in “Ragtime”, the line between fact and fiction is almost unidentifiable, and it almost seems
to be because Doctorow doesn’t care. He seems to have disregarded the entire concept of an
accurate historical record, throwing objectivity to the wind and mixing real not with reckless abandon.
At this point, all we can do is wait and see how the rest of the novel plays out and whether or not the
remaining events will be traceable.
to be because Doctorow doesn’t care. He seems to have disregarded the entire concept of an
accurate historical record, throwing objectivity to the wind and mixing real not with reckless abandon.
At this point, all we can do is wait and see how the rest of the novel plays out and whether or not the
remaining events will be traceable.
What do you think? How does Doctorow treat fact, fiction, and the line between them? Does he even
care about it at all?
care about it at all?
I really liked your observation in your third paragraph about how Doctorow’s style changes based on which character he’s narrating. It is very interesting the amount of time he dedicated to Morgan vs Ford, even though he doesn’t seem to like Morgan very much, and I think your idea that the narration matches the character is pretty compelling. I think I could also see that with Houdini’s narration. On stage, it is what Houdini is doing that is amazing, not the fanfare around it. Similarly, in his narration of Houdini, Doctorow gets straight to the point, without many complex adjectives or long sentences, and with pretty matter-of-fact prose.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I disagree that the biases belong to the characters rather than Doctorow himself. In class we were constantly asking ourselves, "what does Doctorow think? What does he want us to think?". Although we did often find it hard to come up with an answer to these questions, we were able to sketch a broad idea of whether Doctorow was for or against something.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the focus in "Ragtime" really shifts in dynamic as the novel progresses. It seems to start as a historical construction to which he has added several fictitious characters and details to make connections. By the end of the novel, it seems the story has evolved to be a true narrative aided by history, such that we have the Coalhouse story central to the plot, and lots of other historical facts and figures interwoven, but they are no longer the focus.
I think Doctorow has a lot of fun playing with fact and fiction. I'd say he certainly cares about his use of history--he is always giving us reasons that these "historical" happenings can't be found. He can also be blatantly fictitious, such as Houdini showing up right as the boy starts to think of him. He flaunts his ability to manipulate the story however he chooses, with the Evelyn/Tateh, Younger Brother/Evelyn, Tateh/Mother interactions. I think he certainly cares that he is using fact AND fiction, but I think he doesn't want to draw a line between them, his story is better conveyed without regard to separating the two genres as we would tend to.
I think this is an interesting observation. I never thought about it till you mentioned but historical literature before the postmodernist era I feel always talked about history alongside the characters and mainly for plot. With Ragtime, we get something different where we see critiques about the society of the 20s. I do agree with Alyssa though I think through the characters Doctorow presents his biases and opinions, or at least we tried to figure out what he was trying to say. Nice post!
ReplyDeleteAlthough it may be true that absolute objectivity is unattainable, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to get as close to it as possible. If all the evedence points in one direction, its probably reasonable to claim that is the truth, at least so we can move on to talk about more important things. We can't know what happened in history, but new and greater evedence means that we can get closer and closer.
ReplyDeleteHi. I'm going to post this comment as a response to your post "convention shmovention" here because it won't let me post it in the comments for that post :((((. Anyway, here goes: Hmmm. I like this a lot. I had noticed Reed’s deliberate disregard for convention, but I had not put two and two together in realizing that dismissing convention means dismissing white convention. After all, if white culture determines convention, any split from convention is a split from white culture. Huh. Can we consider Reed’s typos and use of numerical symbols for numbers instead of typing the words a form of Jes Grew manifesting itself in the actual writing of the book of Mumbo Jumbo? Is this a metanarrative in which Jes Grew infects Reed’s book as well? *wipes sweat from brow* *faints*
ReplyDelete